I shouldn't really comment because I haven't used it
that much as I just got it, but from what I can see there isn't much difference between Finepix Studio (heretofore called "FS") and HU. In fact clearly they are the same application with some alterations.
The HU interface seems generally better and has more options, though I actually prefer the sensitization (ie: exposure) slider of FS over the klunky drop down on HU. In any case, about the only feature that I can without a doubt see missing in FS that might matter to many is the ability to select output size. Everything else appears to just be a nicety.
Since the "FS" output size is a fixed 12 mp, down sampling is Photoshop or something doesn't sound like a lot of work, nor is it likely to yield a weaker image. Otherwise from what I've read here, it appears to be the same RAW engine underneath.
I can't argue, nor do I doubt, the HU (or FS if they really use the same engine) produces the best output of all RAW converters. However the interface is painful if you've used either Capture One or Lightroom. Also, the preview image looks remarkably worse and thus doesn't incline me to see the worth of the image as easily.
I suspect if I use it more it may grow on me. Certainly this will be true if it produces a better target image, but unless you want tethered shooting I think you'd be hard pressed to convince me that it's really worth the upgrade from FS. Given that I found a copy on eBay at a substantial discount it was maybe worth it.
I guess I would definitely say that if you try HU or FS and find it so painful you're not using it, don't give up on RAW, but instead try a more user friendly converter like Lightroom or Capture One (or ACR, Silkypix, DXO, Lightzone, or Bibble). Frankly for most people they are going to be more than sufficient and certainly less likely to make you want to throw yourself in front of a bus in frustration.
--
Matt Fahrner
http://www.boinkphoto.com 
